ख़बरें: एक झलक

Government Contracts

Followers 0

6 files

Sort By

Ref. Case 7(P) of 2020 reference from the Hon’ble President of India under Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution read with Section 9A of the RP Act, 1951 for opinion of the ECI in the matter of disqualification of Sh Rajeev Shankarrao Satav Rajya Sabha MP

ECI द्वारा

File No.113/7(P)/Maharashtra/2020/Registry.
Allegation of Disqualification – Having subsisting contract with Government
COMMISSION’S OPINION DATED 09.04.2021- REFERENCE FROM THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT OF INDIA ORDER DATED 06.01.2022- DISQUALIFICATION OF SH. RAJEEV SHANKARRAO SATAV, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT (RAJYA SABHA) FROM MAHARASHTRA.
It was held that Shri Rajeev Shankarrao Satav has not incurred disqualification under the provisions of Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution of India read with Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as there was no subsisting contract between him and the appropriate government.
Decision: Not disqualified.

56 downloads

फ़ाइल सबमिट की गई Wednesday 27 July 2022
Disqualification of Sh.Ranvendra Pratap Singh “Dhunni Bhaiya”, MLA from Hussainganj AC of Uttar Pradesh under the provisions of Article 191 of the Constitution of India read with Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

ECI द्वारा

A reference from the Hon’ble Governor of Uttar Pradesh under Article 192(2) of the Constitution of India for opinion of the Election Commission of India in the matter of disqualification of Sh.Ranvendra Pratap Singh “Dhunni Bhaiya”, Member of Legislative Assembly from Hussainganj Assembly Constituency of Uttar Pradesh
Allegation of Disqualification – Having subsisting contract with Government of Uttar Pradesh
COMMISSION’S OPINION DATED 05.07.2021- REFERENCE FROM THE HON’BLE GOVERNOR OF UTTAR PRADESH ORDER DATED 02.08.2021- DISQUALIFICATION OF SH. RANVENDRA PRATAP SINGH “DHUNNI BHAIYA”, MLA FROM 242-HUSAINGANJ ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY OF UTTAR PRADESH.
It was held that Shri Ranvendra Pratap Singh “Dhunni Bhaiya” has not incurred disqualification under the provisions of Article 191 of the Constitution of India read with Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as there was no subsisting contract between him and the appropriate government.
Decision: Not disqualified.

68 downloads

फ़ाइल सबमिट की गई Wednesday 27 July 2022
Reference Case No. 7(G) of 2019 – Disqualification of Shri Digambar Vasant Kamat, Member of Legislative Assembly of Goa, under Article 192 of the Constitution of India read with Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

ECI द्वारा

File No. 113/7(G)/Goa/2019/Registry
COMMISSION’S OPINION DATED 09.07.2020- REFERENCE FROM HON’BLE GOVERNOR OF GOA ORDER DATED 04.08.2020- DISQUALIFICATION OF SHRI DIGAMBAR KAMAT, MLA
Allegation of disqualification- having subsisting contract with government of Goa.
It was held that Shri Digambar Kamat did not incur disqualification under Section 9A of the RP Act, 1951, as there was no subsisting contract between him and the appropriate government. The question of deriving indirect monetary benefit was not contemplated under Section 9A. A direct connection between Shri Digambar Kamat and the appropriate government was not established.
Further, the decisions relied on by the Petitioner on the principle of Communion of Assets under the Portuguese Civil Code, 1860 were not applicable in the present case as they pertained to the legislations concerning local body elections.
Held- Not disqualified.

83 downloads

फ़ाइल सबमिट की गई Wednesday 27 July 2022
Ref case No. 7(G) of 2017- Reference from Hon’ble Governor of Goa under Article 192(2) of the Constitution- disqualification of Shri Digamber Vasant Kamat- Commission’s opinion dated 01.08.2017 and Hon’ble Governor’s Order dated 09.09.2017

ECI द्वारा

COMMISSION’S OPINION DATED 01.08.2017- REFERENCE FROM HON’BLE GOVERNOR OF GOA ORDER DATED 09.09.2017- DISQUALIFICATION OF SHRI DIGAMBER VASANT KAMAT, MLA
Allegation of disqualification- for subsisting contract with government- corrupt practices
Constitution of India- Article 190(3)(a), 191(1)(a)- RPA, 1951- Section 8A & 9A- Held- not guilty- Respondent has no subsisting contract
The Election Commission opined that there was no subsisting contract of the Respondent with the state government in the course of his trade and business, and the Respondent was neither a partner in the partnership firm nor the Director of the company on the date of his nomination or on any date subsequent to it.
Decision: not maintainable

58 downloads

फ़ाइल सबमिट की गई Wednesday 27 July 2022
Reference Case 3(G) of 2019- Reference from Hon’ble Governor of Uttar Pradesh under Article 192(2) of the Constitution for disqualification of Dr. Arun Kumar, MLA

ECI द्वारा

File No. 113/3(G)/UP/2019/Registry
COMMISSION’S OPINION DATED 25.09.2019 AND HON’BLE GOVERNOR’S ORDER DATED 07.11.2019- REFERENCE RECEIVED FROM HON’BLE GOVERNOR OF UTTAR PRADESH - DISQUALIFICATION OF DR. ARUN KUMAR MLA.

Allegation of disqualification- for- contract with appropriate government- Bareilly Municipal Corporation
Constitution of India- disqualification under Article 191(1)(a) and Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951- Held- not guilty
The Election Commission held that there was no agreement enforceable by law between the Respondent and the Bareilly Municipal Corporation; therefore, requirements of Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 are not fulfilled. Further, the Bareilly Municipal Corporation does not fall within the purview of “appropriate government” as defined under Section 7(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Decision: Not disqualified.

155 downloads
- disqualification
- arun kumar
- (and 1 more)
  Tagged with:
फ़ाइल सबमिट की गई Wednesday 27 November 2019
Ref. case 3(G) of 2014- Reference from Hon’ble Governor of Maharashtra under Article 192(2) of the Constitution- disqualification of Shri M.G. Bhangadia, MLC- Commission’s opinion dated 20.06.2018 and Hon’ble Governor’s dated 16.08.2018

ECI द्वारा

COMMISSION’S OPINION DATED 20.06.2018- REFERENCE FROM HON’BLE GOVERNOR OF MAHARASHTRA ORDER DATED 16.08.2018- DISQUALIFICATION OF SHRI M.G. BHANGADIA, MLC
Allegation of disqualification- for- having subsisting contract with government of Maharashtra (VIDC) at the time of election
Representation of the People Act, 1951- Section 9A- Held- not guilty- in view of Supreme Court decision in Shrikant vs. Vasantrao & Ors and Bombay High Court decision in Gajanan vs. Kirtikumar Mitesh Bhangdiya & Ors.
The Election Commission held that in view of the Supreme Court findings in Shrikant vs. Vasantrao & Ors, [(2006) 2 SCC 682] and Bombay High Court decision in Gajanan vs. Kirtikumar Mitesh Bhangdiya &Ors, the Respondent would not be disqualified.
It was stated by the Commission that VIDC is an instrumentality of the state, created for the purpose of implementation of projects for which it receives budgetary support from the government, and thus, a person having subsisting contract with such a corporation is in essence having a contractual relationship with the government.
However, in Shrikant, it was stated that the term ‘state government’ is different from ‘local or other authorities under the control of the state government’ for the purposes of disqualification. Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation (GMIDC) constituted under GMIDC Act is not State Government and therefore any contracts with it are not contracts entered into by the candidate with the appropriate government.
Further, In Gajanan, the High Court relied on the view of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned matter and held that Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC) under VIDC Act is not “appropriate government” for the purpose of attracting disqualification under Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Decision: not maintainable

149 downloads
- judicial reference
- office of profit
फ़ाइल सबमिट की गई Monday 15 October 2018